(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); going to try keep this short so what im looking for is a new pc as currently my laptop if shitty, im thinking of building an amd a10 apu build, but wanted to know what you guys would do, my budget is £300-£450, can probably go to £500 but not yet.


CPU: Im thinking something with the AMD APU Series, unless you guys have better suggestions.
GPU: Not neccessary, i want to build and get this pc as fast as i can, i will have more money in future so i would then add a gpu (Only if i am using amd a6-a10, if not, ill need a gpu)
CPU Cooler: Im wanting to overclock, even just a little.
PSU: Nothing cheap i dont want to fry components, maybe corsair 80+ bronze certified or something
Case: Doesnt have to be all fancy, would like some lighting if possible, if not i can add in future, and preferably a well cooled case
DVD Writer: Just something simple to put the occasional game disc in or cd.
Wi-Fi Card: Nothing too overpriced,a wireless-n adapter should do good(anything cheaper will probably still be fine, or i can always use ethernet cable), internal or external, doesnt matter.
Hard drive: Anything from 500Gb
Monitor: If its in my budget, then go ahead add in a monitor, doesnt need to be big, 18" would do me, doesnt need to be full led hd 3d shit.

This is just me wanting to know what you guys would do, and if you can help me decide on what i should use, aslong as it has some good power and runs well im happy, i can always upgrade in future, hopefully. oh, yeah, make sure the power supply is over 400w incase i do upgrade, or overclock.
If you use links please keep it to websites using £ currency, such as amazon.co.uk instead of .com, thanks
sorry if i missed anything in a rush, will check this later, thanks
forgot to say, ill be wanting to run bf3 as im building this pc so i can switch to pc instead of console gaming, even if the pc runs it on medium with some low things, im sure itll still beat, or match ps3, can always upgrade in future

Price/Performances. Exactly.
Since next gen is using AMD hardware and you assume multithreading will be big right off the bat you couldn't be any more wrong.
Until old gen support is laid to rest you won't be seeing a major multithread increase on consoles period.

Lets get this realistic. Scoot is looking at AMD hardware, but I believe he should take a look at intel also. Price Performance is what you will get with intel, bang for the buck as I like to say it. Plus overclocking intel is a breeze if you want to get a little extra juice.
Now heres a fun fact Hyperthreading on Intel chips counts as having double the actual cores - the i7 hass 8 cores, and the i3 has 4 cores. This isn't technically correct but is close enough for decision-making purposes.
So when buying a CPU when its a Quad core is the general choice. Anything higher than 4 cores adds ZERO performance in gaming/general desktop work - those extra cores are only beneficial in heavy multimedia or scientific applications.
The big difference between intel and amd right now is that amd has higher power usage and are still beaten soundly in single-thread performance compared to intel chips.

You want a budget system that can do Battlefield 3? Mobo H77 + i3 3220,

CPU: Intel Core i3-3220 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor (£85.50 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: ASRock H77M Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard (£48.66 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Corsair 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1333 Memory (£34.85 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £114.43

Thats bang for your buck, everything else is pointless. You select a good PSU when you have a good GPU you want to select.

Currently, games are developed on consoles and then ported down to PC the vast majority of the time. In the instances where this doesn't occur, CPUs which support multithreadsing, whether they're Intel or AMD, tend to see a big improvement in performance if the time was put on that in development.

'Next-gen' consoles are coming within a year, and they'll all be using x86 AMD hardware. This means that due to the consoles being the bottleneck in a scenario where they can start development on any platform, it makes sense to develop for PC and then port to consoles. This will result in less sh*tty ports and more optimization and one of the places where that will show itself will inevitably be multithreading.

With that in mind, unless you can afford a 3770k/4770k, AMD FX CPUs provide superior performance to the equivalently priced Intel alternatives.



No you don't. Intel have positioned themselves as a 'premium' CPU brand through marketing, so unless you want to spend more than £140-160 on your CPU AMD provide better value. If however you wish to exceed that price point like I did, then by all means go Intel. AMD have no competition at the higher end of the scale.



This is the sort of thing that displays your fanboyism - an unbiased person would note that overclocking is dead easy on both Intel (unlocked) & AMD CPUs, but you've only made the case for Intel.



I'm aware of this. My 3770k has 4 physical cores but 8 logical cores.



Benchmarks, please.



Again you're only listing the Intel positives. Here's a fairer overview (up-to £140-160):

AMD - Much better performance in multithreaded applications, cheaper CPUs, cheaper motherboards in terms of socket compatibility.

Intel - Much better single-threaded performance as you said, so this benefits primarily in instances where multithreading isn't utilized. Lower power consumption.



Good job choosing a game that doesn't scale well with multithreading and cores.

PC Part Picker is also telling me that the CPU is £2 more expensive, the motherboard over £15 more expensive and the memory almost £10 more expensive. On-top of that, the total for the above (ignoring the dodgy prices) is actually over £160... With that in mind, here's an equal alternative at significantly cheaper than yours is with actual prices:

You must login or register to view this content. / You must login or register to view this content. / You must login or register to view this content.


CPU: You must login or register to view this content. (£83.99 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: You must login or register to view this content. (£38.54 @ CCL Computers)
Memory: You must login or register to view this content. (£33.92 @ Dabs)
Total: £156.45
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-05-16 14:26 BST+0100)

Although if I were suggesting a build for someone I'd probably get an ATX motherboard and 1866MHz memory, the above is equivalent to your build a much cheaper.

Pure Intel fanboy talk right there.

Take a look here: You must login or register to view this content.

If you look at the top 'CPU Value' processors in descending order you'll see AMD all over it, and just to pick out a few of AMD's new Vishera's;

AMD FX-6300 - Price/Performance value = 55.05
AMD FX-8320 - Price/Performance value = 52.02
AMD FX-8350 - Price/Performance value = 50.81

Now let's check out some of the most popular Intels...

Intel i5-3570k - Price/Performance value = 33.91
Intel i7-3770k - Price/Performance value = 31.74
Intel i7-2700k - Price/Performance value = 27.95
Intel i7-2600k - Price/Performance value = 25.18


What was that you say? Bang for buck is what Intel offer? Sure doesn't look like it...

my friends brother built his own computer ain't that hard

AMD FX-6300 is what i have in mine bro iv'e had it for about a month <--- need to get this fucking amazing.

Agreed, if I didn't go for the FX-8350 it would've been the FX-6300.

Yea the are like the best period.

Sorry guy, but you aren't using a good enough benchmark website to prove your case. We're looking for gaming benchmarks not bullshit values.
You must login or register to view this content. Intel is 10% faster in performance, plus it can handle BF 3 on high settings.
£171.97 for Intel 25 Apr 2012 vs £90.13 AMD - Oct 2012, major difference between the two? For video editing and what not, the FX6300 is great. For gaming and single threaded applications, the i5 dominates over the FX6300. Plus a games like BF3 which are cpu intensive handle even better than the amd bulldozer series.

About a 80£ difference, than again if you are expecting to enjoy some BF3 etc without much hassle its worth it. You doing a lot of graphics rendering, and that sort of thing I would say go with the AMD.

You must login or register to view this content. Intel is 16% faster, Handles Arma 3 on High settings right off the bat, damn impressive.

£120.98 for the AMD 23 Oct 2012, and £251.94 for the Intel 25 Apr 2012. Same deal as before. The intel is better for the gaming aspect, plus you don't need to buy a expensive motherboard to overclock it. Don't know about the AMD if it would require a beefier mobo for the overclock. Definitely a large gap in price. About £130. I was on the budget I would go with the AMD at this point.(But I am a Intel Fan boy so FUCK THAT NOISE)

The other i7's well its almost pointless to bring them up at this point. Mainly because they are discontinued on a lot of sites for purchase.

Well I will admit there is some price inflation with Intel, but it does out perform those Amd's Plus I've never fried a Intel chip from overclocking. Can't say that about the Amd's.
My main concern though. It's been a few years since I've OC'd a AMD proc, but did they ever put in a safety for the overheating CPU? For instance most intels these days when you take the heatsink/waterbrick off, and start the system the motherboard will automatically shutoff when the chip goes past a safe overheating value. I know amd didn't have that back in the day and lots of folks fried their chips when actually doing overclock. They ever fix that?

I think under all of your bias we're actually in agreement Quagmire - Intel wins in single-threaded stuff, and AMD wins in multi-threaded stuff.

I do however find problem with the way in which you're claiming a gaming victory for Intel when you've specifically chosen a game that doesn't have good multithreading support. Also, were you suggesting that AMD CPUs can't handle BF3 on high settings? Seriously?